GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred by the defendant against the order dated 7-7-1999 in allowing the IA no. 1777 of 1995 for amendment of the plaint in OS No. 15 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, vizianagaram.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, the suit was filed by the plaintiff, respondent herein, for eviction of the tenant-defendant and for recovery of arrears of rents. The tenant-revision petitioner denied title of the respondent-plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff-respondent therefore, filed the above IA seeking amendment of the plaint which is extracted hereunder:". . . . . . . . . . . . . THE Honourable Court may be pleased to permit me to add at the end of para 111 (3) of the plaint "to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property" and to delete in the para V of the plaint "one year s rent Rs. 1,200/- and add 3/4th market value of the property Rs. 9,000/- and a court fee of Rs. 711/- is paid under section 24 (a) of the APCF and s. V. Act, and to add para VI of the plaint as Vl (a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property", in the interest of justice. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner-respondent opposed that application stating that in the written statement and also in the reply notice sent to the plaintiff-respondent, he denied the title of the plaintiff and that as the petition is filed at a belated stage, the relief sought is barred by time, and that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-respondent amounts to introducing a new cause of action, and therefore the petition is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, before the trial Court, the revision petitioner relied on a decision reported in N. Raghotham Rao (died) per LR v. MCH, 1996 (4) ALT 1126. The trial Court on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the judgment of this Court reported in V. Bali Reddy v. Divisional Engineer, APSEB, 1999 (2) ALT 173, to the effect that the Court has the discretion to order amendment even if the amendment sought for is barred by limitation in the interest of justice, and ordered the amendment sought for by the respondent-plaintiff.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant preferred this revision petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the plaintiff-respondent though aware of the denial of the title by the defendant did not ask for declaratory relief. Therefore, the claim itself is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act as the cause of action begins from the date of reply notice and denying his title, whereas the application for amendment of the plaint was filed after a period of six years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision reported in Shaik Omer Bin Alt Umodi v. Syed Yousuf ali, 1997 (1) ALT 560, contended that the period of limitation is three years from date of accrual of the cause of action and the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to him.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents relying on the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Ragu thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, 2000 (1) ald 31, contended that no interference is warranted in the order under challenge on the ground of delay.

( 7 ) IN Ragu Thilak D. John s case (supra) the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing compound wall in the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit it was alleged that the wall was demolished by the defendants. In view of the subsequent demolition, the relief of amendment sought by them for damages was allowed holding that the plea of limitation can be raised by the defendants after allowing the amendment. Further, the supreme Court considered its earlier judgment reported in B. K. N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, (1999) 10 JT (SC) 61 = 2000 AIR scw 42 =

Click Here to Read the rest of this document